Comparison of Normal Vaginal Delivery with or without Antenatal Exercise in Primigravida Presenting in A Tertiary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the frequency of normal vaginal delivery in primigravida females with or without antenatal exercise Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial Study Duration: 6 months i.e. 4-5-2021 to 4-11-2021 Setting: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jinnah hospital, Lahore. Material and methods: 100 females fulfilled the criteria were enrolled. Then females were randomly divided in two groups. In group A, females were advised to do exercise daily. In group B, females were not advised to do any exercise. Then females were followed-up till delivery. Mode of delivery was noted. All this information was collected on proforma. Data was analyzed in SPSS. The study groups were compared by applying chi-square test. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: In exercise group, the mean age of patients was 26.00±4.76years. In no exercise group, the mean age of patients was 26.32±4.97years. In exercise group, normal vaginal delivery occurred in 42 (84%) patients. In no exercise group, normal vaginal delivery occurred in 29 (58%) patients. The difference was significant (p<0.05). Conclusion: Thus with exercise, then chances of normal vaginal delivery increase significantly in primigravida. Keywords: Normal vaginal delivery, antenatal exercise, primigravida
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".